Search for: "Child v. Child" Results 9281 - 9300 of 31,252
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (A) (a Child) (by her litigation friend B) v Secretary of State for Health, heard 2 November 2016. [read post]
8 Apr 2017, 7:59 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The OSC granted the defendants application to restrain the plaintiff from transferring their minor child from a school in Queens to a school in Nassau County. [read post]
8 Apr 2017, 7:59 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The OSC granted the defendants application to restrain the plaintiff from transferring their minor child from a school in Queens to a school in Nassau County. [read post]
8 Apr 2017, 4:33 pm by INFORRM
Appreciate you are busy but it would be v helpful to have answers to qs about party status and existence/format of jmt. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 8:52 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Fort Peck Tribes (Child Neglect) State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.htmlCougar Den, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 2:12 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On appeal from: [2016] EWHC 1283 (Admin)   This appeal considered whether, on an information alleging a failure by a parent over a specified period to secure that his child attends school regularly contrary to the Education Act 1996, s 444(1), the child’s attendance outside the specified period is relevant to the question whether the offence has been committed. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 12:15 pm
First, the Article looks at how the Constitution impacted Douglass and how Douglass was himself a “constitutional actor,” even though he held no public office and was not even considered a U.S. citizen under the holding in Dred Scott v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 12:15 pm by Christine Corcos
First, the Article looks at how the Constitution impacted Douglass and how Douglass was himself a “constitutional actor,” even though he held no public office and was not even considered a U.S. citizen under the holding in Dred Scott v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 2:32 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Therefore the prior charges failed to alert the person charged to the importance of a young person’s age in relation to sexual behaviour, and so could not justify depriving that person, if later charged with a sexual offence against an older child of the reasonable belief defence. [read post]